| |
Main
Date: 24 Feb 2007 07:47:00
From: Ben.
Subject: Tiger loses to excuse
|
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/23/match.play.ap/index.html?cnn=yes
Excuses, excuses. Faldo was right - you're bound to miss a short putt
some time, why not against a guy who could hide behind a golf club and
hits it 50 yards shorter than. Sure, why not?
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 10:58:30
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
On Feb 26, 12:11 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> Yep - I think if you hunker down, turn down the lights, call in sick
> for the rest of the month, get some viagra and Red Bull, you can beat
> Howard...it won't be easy, but I'm rootin' for you!
No way. I'd get carpal tunnel tryin to hang with Howard.
He's the King of the Keyboard. The Sultan of "State the Obvious."
The Ayatollah of Crapola.
Over 48,000 Newsgroup posts and he's never said anything.
C'mon Howard, you can do better than "Medal play is the least
interesting type of golf to watch. Team play is the most
interesting."
Yeah, and I like doughnuts and cheerleaders. Tell us something we
don't know.
I know he lives in a boring state and all, but DAMN!
Geez, no wonder the kids in Colorado want to kill everybody.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 14:01:31
From: BAR
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
annika1980 wrote:
> On Feb 26, 12:11 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yep - I think if you hunker down, turn down the lights, call in sick
>> for the rest of the month, get some viagra and Red Bull, you can beat
>> Howard...it won't be easy, but I'm rootin' for you!
>
> No way. I'd get carpal tunnel tryin to hang with Howard.
> He's the King of the Keyboard. The Sultan of "State the Obvious."
> The Ayatollah of Crapola.
> Over 48,000 Newsgroup posts and he's never said anything.
>
> C'mon Howard, you can do better than "Medal play is the least
> interesting type of golf to watch. Team play is the most
> interesting."
> Yeah, and I like doughnuts and cheerleaders. Tell us something we
> don't know.
>
> I know he lives in a boring state and all, but DAMN!
> Geez, no wonder the kids in Colorado want to kill everybody.
At least half his neighbors are not ried to their cousins, unlike a
southern state with a name that begins with T.
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 09:11:26
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
On Feb 26, 8:56 am, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 12:35 am, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I knew a club pro like you - a one or two who back in '99 kept telling
> > me he could beat Craig Stadler. My money is on Eldrick at any
> > distance 80% of the time on a bad day. Besides, with numbers for the
> > month that have Brazee scurrying to maintain his lead, I'm guessing
> > you aren't spending too much time on the links.
>
> LOL! Good point.
> OK, so maybe I'd need a 7-iron.
Yep - I think if you hunker down, turn down the lights, call in sick
for the rest of the month, get some viagra and Red Bull, you can beat
Howard...it won't be easy, but I'm rootin' for you!
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 06:56:15
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
On Feb 26, 12:35 am, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> I knew a club pro like you - a one or two who back in '99 kept telling
> me he could beat Craig Stadler. My money is on Eldrick at any
> distance 80% of the time on a bad day. Besides, with numbers for the
> month that have Brazee scurrying to maintain his lead, I'm guessing
> you aren't spending too much time on the links.
LOL! Good point.
OK, so maybe I'd need a 7-iron.
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 22:56:24
From: Bucky
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
On Feb 25, 8:20 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> Jones was speaking from a player's perspective. And he was arguable the
> best player of his era, and probably thought he should have won just about
> every tournament he entered.
OK, I see what you're saying. Jones was just pointing out the fact
that he hated match play because it gave him less of an advantage. Not
that match play should be outlawed or something.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 00:18:39
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com > wrote in message
news:1172472984.132934.150460@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 8:20 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>> Jones was speaking from a player's perspective. And he was arguable the
>> best player of his era, and probably thought he should have won just
>> about
>> every tournament he entered.
>
> OK, I see what you're saying. Jones was just pointing out the fact
> that he hated match play because it gave him less of an advantage. Not
> that match play should be outlawed or something.
Yup. That pretty much sums it up.
Randy
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 21:35:20
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
On Feb 25, 10:25 pm, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 11:20 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>
> > If a golf match
> > consisted of just one hole, played on, say, a 130-yard par three, I would
> > think there are quite a few people in RSG who could beat Tiger Woods
> > head-to-head, straight up, if they played each other 100 times. Heck, they
> > might even win 30 or 40 times. (Well, maybe 20.) But there's not a chance
> > in hell they'd beat him if they played that same hole more times.
>
> 130-yard hole? I'd wax his ass!
> Anything longer, bet on T.
I knew a club pro like you - a one or two who back in '99 kept telling
me he could beat Craig Stadler. My money is on Eldrick at any
distance 80% of the time on a bad day. Besides, with numbers for the
month that have Brazee scurrying to maintain his lead, I'm guessing
you aren't spending too much time on the links.
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 20:25:45
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
On Feb 25, 11:20 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> If a golf match
> consisted of just one hole, played on, say, a 130-yard par three, I would
> think there are quite a few people in RSG who could beat Tiger Woods
> head-to-head, straight up, if they played each other 100 times. Heck, they
> might even win 30 or 40 times. (Well, maybe 20.) But there's not a chance
> in hell they'd beat him if they played that same hole more times.
130-yard hole? I'd wax his ass!
Anything longer, bet on T.
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 00:18:11
From: Bucky
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
On Feb 24, 9:23 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> Jones, one of the best ever at match play, hated the 18-hole match play
> format, saying it was too unpredictable, because an inferior player could
> get hot for a few holes and run away with a match.
Well, that's the whole point of sports, is that the inferior player
can always pull out a win. If the better player always won, then
nobody would be following sports.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 11:20:47
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com > wrote in message
news:1172391491.539714.190470@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 24, 9:23 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>> Jones, one of the best ever at match play, hated the 18-hole match play
>> format, saying it was too unpredictable, because an inferior player could
>> get hot for a few holes and run away with a match.
>
> Well, that's the whole point of sports, is that the inferior player
> can always pull out a win. If the better player always won, then
> nobody would be following sports.
>
I don't disagree with you. But remember, you're speaking from a fan's
perspective.
Jones was speaking from a player's perspective. And he was arguable the
best player of his era, and probably thought he should have won just about
every tournament he entered. His point was that in an 18-hole match, just
about anyone could get hot for a stretch of holes and make it very difficult
for his opponent to win -- the shorter format is just more volatile. You
could take his premise to an extreme and see what he means. If a golf match
consisted of just one hole, played on, say, a 130-yard par three, I would
think there are quite a few people in RSG who could beat Tiger Woods
head-to-head, straight up, if they played each other 100 times. Heck, they
might even win 30 or 40 times. (Well, maybe 20.) But there's not a chance
in hell they'd beat him if they played that same hole more times. The
shorter the competition, the more volatile it is.
On the other hand, in a 36-hole match, the better player would most often
prevail because, after all, over the long haul, he is just better.
That's all Jones was saying.
Randy
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 12:57:21
From: WW
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
sounds valid to me. I got to say, that Ohern is a cock son a bitch.
his quote...
"To beat him once was an amazing thrill," O'Hern said. "I'm sure he
wanted to even the score today. I just knew if I played well and
played solidly, I could do it again."
I looked at this guys stats on PGA.com.....there non existent. Guy is
shooting lights out & was very cool w/ Tiger. I kinda laughed....Tiger
made him put a gimme & in the end he made tiger finish off a little
one - maybe on 18.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 23:24:22
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
WW wrote:
> I looked at this guys stats on PGA.com.....there non existent. Guy is
> shooting lights out & was very cool w/ Tiger. I kinda laughed....Tiger
> made him put a gimme & in the end he made tiger finish off a little
> one - maybe on 18.
"Nick O'Hern is the most annoying of players because he has the funky
practice rehearsal, and a somewhat ungainly swing accentuated by the
fact he is left-handed. Worse for his opponents is he hits relatively
short by modern standards but, like Jim Furyk, he rarely misses a shot,
he has a short game to die for and emotionally he gives absolutely
nothing away."
Mike Clayton
--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 10:05:54
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
On Feb 24, 12:19 pm, "warren montgomery"
<wamontgom...@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
>>
> I'm not going to miss Tiger -- his absence means we will get to see all the
> matchines.
No, his absence means that most of us won't watch at all.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 16:36:59
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
>> I'm not going to miss Tiger -- his absence means we will get to see all
>> the
>> matchines.
>
> No, his absence means that most of us won't watch at all.
>
Your loss -- for me this has been the most interesting TV golf outside the
Ryder cup. Great shots, great recoveries, great competitition and great
sportsmanship.
--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 23:33:39
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:36:59 -0600, "warren montgomery"
<wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
>Your loss -- for me this has been the most interesting TV golf outside the
>Ryder cup. Great shots, great recoveries, great competitition and great
>sportsmanship.
Medal play is the least interesting type of golf to watch. Team play
is the most interesting.
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 12:23:57
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
"Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote
>
> Excuses, excuses. Faldo was right - you're bound to miss a short putt
> some time, why not against a guy who could hide behind a golf club and
> hits it 50 yards shorter than. Sure, why not?
You should read some of Bobby Jones' writing on the subject of match play.
Jones, one of the best ever at match play, hated the 18-hole match play
format, saying it was too unpredictable, because an inferior player could
get hot for a few holes and run away with a match.
Randy
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 22:33:46
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:23:57 -0500, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>You should read some of Bobby Jones' writing on the subject of match play.
>
>Jones, one of the best ever at match play, hated the 18-hole match play
>format, saying it was too unpredictable, because an inferior player could
>get hot for a few holes and run away with a match.
By the same logic, we could say that the only winner should be the
winner of the Fed Ex cup. Because an inferior player could get hot
for a few rounds and run away with a tournament.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 13:24:02
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:23:57 -0500, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>Jones, one of the best ever at match play, hated the 18-hole match play
>format, saying it was too unpredictable, because an inferior player could
>get hot for a few holes and run away with a match.
>
>Randy
The unpredictable nature of golf is what makes it interesting. Tiger,
barring unforeseen circumstances, will become the greatest golfer that
ever lived. The same is true for Roger Federer in tennis. Tiger has
improved the popularity of golf while Federer has not done the same
for tennis. The difference is that when you watch a golf tournament,
it's not a foregone conclusion that Tiger is going to win. Watching
Federer play tennis lacks any drama because he always wins.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 19:08:14
From: Manco
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:23:57 -0500, "\"R&B\""
> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
>> Jones, one of the best ever at match play, hated the 18-hole match
>> play format, saying it was too unpredictable, because an inferior
>> player could get hot for a few holes and run away with a match.
>>
>> Randy
>
>
> The unpredictable nature of golf is what makes it interesting. Tiger,
> barring unforeseen circumstances, will become the greatest golfer that
> ever lived. The same is true for Roger Federer in tennis. Tiger has
> improved the popularity of golf while Federer has not done the same
> for tennis. The difference is that when you watch a golf tournament,
> it's not a foregone conclusion that Tiger is going to win. Watching
> Federer play tennis lacks any drama because he always wins.
I'm a huge Roger fan, but why inject tennis into this discussion?
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 15:23:42
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:08:14 GMT, "Manco" <manco_dollars@net2blah.com >
wrote:
>> The unpredictable nature of golf is what makes it interesting. Tiger,
>> barring unforeseen circumstances, will become the greatest golfer that
>> ever lived. The same is true for Roger Federer in tennis. Tiger has
>> improved the popularity of golf while Federer has not done the same
>> for tennis. The difference is that when you watch a golf tournament,
>> it's not a foregone conclusion that Tiger is going to win. Watching
>> Federer play tennis lacks any drama because he always wins.
>
>I'm a huge Roger fan, but why inject tennis into this discussion?
Just as a comparison. No golfer, no matter how dominant, is going to
win all the time. That's what makes golf interesting. There is that
old sports cliche that "On any given day etc." , but in golf, it's
true.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 19:29:22
From: Rog
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:0a71u2tiv1l151me88cjaa994glug1kamr@4ax.com...
>>>I'm a huge Roger fan
Thanks <blush >
Rog
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 11:19:21
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: Tiger loses to excuse
|
"Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1172332020.436632.45120@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/23/match.play.ap/index.html?cnn=yes
>
> Excuses, excuses. Faldo was right - you're bound to miss a short putt
> some time, why not against a guy who could hide behind a golf club and
> hits it 50 yards shorter than. Sure, why not?
>
I'm not sure why the focus on the 4 footer. Tiger lost the match on the
20th -- after O'hearn it his in the bunker, Tiger had a clear advantage and
a shorter club in his hand and hit a poor approach. Even then he had a good
lie with plenty of green to work with vs a tough long bunker shot. Tiger's
chip wasn't up to standards. Let's not even talk about the first half a
dozen holes where he was playing out of the desert more often than not.
Tiger has always been at his best as the competition comes to a close. In a
stroke play tournament you can afford an off day, as long as it's not too
off, then come back strong. In match play an off day usually means going
home early. Maybe that's another reason why there are so few Americans in
this competition and the Ryder cup. The PGA tour setups generally favor the
bombers who get a lot of birdies when they are hitting it straight, but
struggle to avoid bogey when the driver goes sour. I've seen a lot of these
matches won by finesse players who aren't that long but know how to get on
the greens in regulation and make putts. You can afford one bad day in a 4
day tournament, but not in 6 rounds of matches. I'm not familiar enough
with the setups on the world events to know whether they give the finess
players any more of a break, but I'd characerise a lot of the internationals
as finesse players.
I'm not going to miss Tiger -- his absence means we will get to see all the
matchines. I'm enjoying the matches this morning. Good matches by player
who know how to play match play and are on their games this week. I'm not
going to miss "the streak" either. It's not that I don't like Tiger or
don't think he should have been able to best the record of Byron Nelson, but
the media hype over the streak was interfering with good coverage of what
was happening on the course.
--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
|
|
